No reason to feel outraged on this behaviour by The Economist or any other newspaper. Should we claim our own right ... to be further fooled by that self-caricature of a politician and even of a businessman?

Nothing more than we already knew. The fellow has often proved himself being a mobster, using politics as the own tool. His backers are the usual loyal yes-people. No use to tag anybody else ideologically. No reason to defend this man. Shall we support such a fellow just for fear of Communism? If ever, should we try to escape from a danger, just keeping a similar wrongdoer by long tradition, on power?

I wonder why the court in USA has to come in leave Italy for now. What happens then is MAOIST comes in when you force all to the wall The best yet to come. USA steps in the economy??? A closely watched ruling by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court could trip up European leaders' efforts to calm the region's debt crisis. The court _ akin to the Supreme Court in the US _ will decide Wednesday whether or not it will allow Germany to join the European Stability Mechanism _ a new, permanent (euro) 500 billion ($638.8 billion) bailout fund for the 17 countries that use the euro. I am not too sure why the USA court has to come in the picture as Obama once had said he has nothing to do with the EURO as the matter at the time of election is very sensitive to speak on economy that USA has now and to tell we will help you in Greece Italy Spain etc Citigroup Inc expects to report a noncash charge of $2.9 billion after taxes to reflect a lower value for its brokerage joint venture with Morgan Stanley, the bank said in a regulatory filing on Tuesday. And then in the end what happens the Sociology creeps in Greece's privatisation agency HRADF pushed ahead with a string of state asset sales on Tuesday, putting an end to five months of inactivity caused by the country's political wobbles. HRADF shortlisted four companies, including Qatari Diar Real Estate as well as British-based London and Regional Properties for a landmark, multi-billion euro project to develop the former Athens airport of Hellenikon, it said in a statement. The fund also said it was in the final stretch to seek binding bids for a 90-year lease of a shopping mall that formerly served as the broadcasting centre for the Athens 2004 Olympics (IBC). I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA Greece Spain , Italy all in one pot Mao laughs Is that it? Silvio has no problem as a playboy and he had enough of the three world then now and later but the economy?

some politicians get addicted to the Camera's and the lifestyle of "men in power"........... it seems that Silvio didnt get over it yet........ however he should know that the EU is very much over him....!

What a brilliantly scathing article. This leaves no doubt in the mind of anyone, scotching mumbled rejoinders made by Silvio apologists. As for "Cash will do nicely, Silvio
He may have heard that phrase before, but at least we kept our clothes on", I chuckled.

May I add just a quick correction to the last comment. The Libyan economy actually did significantly better than Italy.
Download GDP growth data from the World Bank from 2001 and 2011 (the prime time for Silvio), compound the growth rates and organize them in ascending order. Zimbabwe is truly the worst with
-34% compounded growth rate, Italy is 24th worst with 4.23% (being just slightly better than Iraq), but Libya is actually 100th worst with 46%. What this means is that Libya did better than Italy and 75 other countries (including USA, UK, Germany, France and the rest of the major Western economies).

Is it me or does this article strike you as entirely self congratulatory and smug? Not that it shouldn't be with TE doing a fine job of putting one of Italy's worst PM's in his place but still, you could have just summarised the whole article by writing: 'Told you so'

At least Samson is singing if all are crying I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA look at the mass , the population then you know India China has the land Korea has man and the young one who just rules how I have no idea but the IT is good I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

The author of the article against Berlusconi is a low-down liar and a cheat; he paid no regard to truth, not to any kind of moral obligation. He has the ethical sense of a pack of jackals. This magazine has conducted for many years a campaign against Berlusconi based on lies, sham, hype and distortion. Its editor is betraying all decent principles. He only trivializes and deceives.

Yes you are right...The Berlusconi's government has been the best we have ever had....Please shut up!! The sham is what I'd like to be when going abroad people say: "Mafia!! Bunga Bunga !! Berlusconi Italiano mafioso"....15 years of nothing, soaring public debt , doubling public expenditure, doing useless (for the country, but useful for him) ad-personam laws....Excuse me but where are the lies??All is true, where does his wealth come from? Why didn't he face legal processes?? Harlot blow-jobber ministers, Do you know Mara Carfagna, Stefania Prestigiacomo, Mariastella Gelmini?? Do you know Vittorio Mangano "Lo stalliere di Arcore" ( a mafious hosted for long time in the Berlusconi's residence in Arcore)? What do you know about him?? I think really few, the task of a newspaper is just to say true things.....and it is what "The Economist" has just done, asking questions that a normal person should be willing to answer, he lost in court, once more, it is true. This is not a denigratory campaign this is just the truth, Berlusconi denigrated himself 15 years ago, just you and some other few stupid Italians (they are coming to be always fewer) cannot believe....

Granted that what you write is oonly crap a by-product of a mentally retarded brain, we must point out that the pure and simple truth is completely different and is as follows:
Berlusconi has had nothing to do with the Mafia since he is a Milanese and only Southerners can affiliate with the Mafia which is a Sicilian criminal organisation. The Italian huge public debt was built by Italian leftists with the help of the red Trade Unions and the Catholic Church. All the proceedings initiated against Berlusconi by criminal left prosecutors have come to naught and he has always been acquitted of every charge made up by the same red prosecutors. The women you have named are very respectable women, something we cannot sure say of your mother, your wife and your sister. Berlusconi's wealth has come from lawful activity. Where does your wealth come from? You are also not only a low-down liar, but the reason brothers and sisters shouldn't marry.

Longman, descending into personal insults is something that is acceptable on Italian TV, but it is not part of the rules on fair play and respect for others that define political discussion in other parts of Europe. Shame on you.
As for Berlusconi's acquittals most of them were on the basis of statutes of limitations, not the absence of guilt.

Have you forgotten your polite espressions you moron have used in your post? Here they are ".....Harlot blow-jobber ministers, Do you know Mara Carfagna, Stefania Prestigiacomo, Mariastella Gelmini?"....These are your exquisite, elegant statements. You idiot ought to be ashemed of yourself!

Fair enough, I suppose. Had I written any of those words.But I DID NOT. 'Fabio M' did.
Please, try to read before becoming aggressive. I think the tone of both your and his post is a bit above the line.

Bacause this is a forum for discussion among people that have read the article. Not a ring for the resolution of personal feuds. But I guess you don't necessarily appreciate that.
So please, carry on with your Commedia all'Italiana and yes, I will stay out of it, like I stay out of Italy when faced with how hopeless it is to try and reason with those that I considered fellow countrymen.

I'm not your countryman. I'm a German although I have been living in Tuscany for more than 30 years. I like Tuscany and South Tyrol. Commedia all'Italiana is perhaps something which would suit you more than me.

A September 5 2008 dispatch by Reuters on the first Berlusconi vs TE libel trial read:

"'They (The Economist's arguments) fully fall within the right to criticise, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution,' Milan Judge Angelo Ricciardi wrote, in a copy of the ruling provided to Reuters by The Economist."

Is it too subtle a distinction to notice that this is not exactly the same as finding that TE's strictures were factually well-grounded (which indeed they had mostly turned out later not to be)?

Of course, to spontaneously draw attention to such an inconvenient difference would require almost superhuman honesty on TE's part. Yet, to advertise now the whole thing as a judicial full endorsement of what the paper had originally written might appear to some as verging on the openly misleading.

Isn't it high time to finally drop such cheap score-setting tricks? After all, Mr B's real flaws are by now very well known to all and sundry, and his political career is practically over. Parce sepultis.

Sir, one would think that in any country a judge would start from the Constitution: that is what provides clear indication of law.

I would not expect a judge to enter the subject matter if higher level piece of legislation (such as any Constitution) is applicable.

I do not know this Article 21 specifically, but it is likely to be one about freedom of expression, one right that is upheld most dearly in all democracies. And thus one Italians should be happy to read about in this judge's statement.

A quite agree with you, thank you. (By the way, the first clause of article 21 of Italy's Constitution reads: "All have the right to freely express their thinking in words, writing and any other diffusion mean". This covers bona fide — though possibly incorrect — inferences drawn from the incomplete information available at the time of TE's original writing.)

As a matter of fact, I was not criticising the sentence, but its seemingly disingenuous interpretation as an endorsement of the factual accuracy of TE's charges against Mr B, which clearly it was not.

He has been pronounced dead many times before. The first was in 1994, after the collapse of his first government. Then again in 1996, following the first defeat inflicted on him by Prodi. And again in 2006.... Wait and see.

Which clearly it was, or it would have constituted false statement, and that is the base for every judgement in cases of libeling, as the article no. 21 of the Italian constitution guarantee freedom of expression, not of lying.

So, reading again the Reuters note: "They (The Economist's arguments) fully fall within the right to criticise", which means: they are true, or otherwise they will not "fully fall" within the right, and it will not be "criticise" in the very first place.

The idea that freedom of thought should be only restricted to "true" thought is the hallmark of all totalitarian tyrannies and has certainly no place within Italy's Constitution. On the contrary, it's the feature that twentieth-century Marxism-Leninism (and Fascism) shared with medieval religious fundamentalism (still promoted by to-day's prevailing Islamic sects). Yet all tolerably literate people should by now be in a position to recognise that — a part from being intellectually untenable — such an idea is simply inconsistent with everybody's liberty. Like the inability to distinguish between lying and mistakes.

That a paper of the tradition and standing of TE (perhaps unwittingly and in the pursuit of a rather petty quarrel) should be now finding itself implicitly peddling such an idea seems hence not very much less than disgraceful.

Mr. Ferretti does not seem to grasp the difference between "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression", among many other things. Among which: what is and what is not intellectually tenable, the idea of what constitutes a proficient distribution of "liberty" among people in any structured society, what constitutes "libeling" (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.) and what is the Italian constitution all about. Which is obviously not about: "Do whatever the heck you like", otherwise it would have been much shorter and have only that precise line. Instead it has plenty of articles stating clearly what it is NOT doable, or legitimate, exactly limiting everybody's freedom to pursue the "dream" of a decent common living.

And one last thing: everyone is, at all time, "implicitly peddling" everything. Therefore the praise is to either be specific, or to stop bullshitting (can I say "bullshitting" on the comments?). The question on the table is Mr. Berlusconi suing The Economist for libeling (which is, I repeat, the publishing of false statement etc) and getting slammed on the face (again), since what TE published is either true, or not damaging the Berla's reputation (a whoremonger is a whoremonger is a whoremonger, if he is you can call him such, and I am just having a casual train of thoughts, here, no specific reference to anyone), most probably both. You stated that:
"Is it too subtle a distinction to notice that this is not exactly the same as finding that TE's strictures were factually well-grounded (which indeed they had mostly turned out later not to be)?" Not to subtle, simply preposterous. The TE's strictures had to be factually well-grounded or else they would have lost the case, which they did not, but we still have one interesting statement you ought to demonstrate: "which they indeed they had mostly turned out later not to be". I will be awaiting any evidence supporting this your last statement eagerly.

Your attempted contrast between "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression" seems a distinction without a difference, with no merit at all. Besides, you are obviously not very familiar with the Italian law of libel. As any textbook of Italian criminal law will plainly explain to you, the offence has a subjective element called "dolo", i.e. the intention to slander: just mere objective untruth of allegations — not known for certain by the indicted person at the time of writing — is not enough. This was very relevant in this case, because some of the allegations TE originally published against Mr B had later been judicially declared to be not true or not proven, through full acquittal (as opposed to mere prescription or change of law). Had this not been the case, the trial judge of the Mr B-TE case would have had no need to quote a constitutional freedom of thought principle to find in favour of TE: the mere proven truthfulness of the allegations would by itself have been quite enough.
Your stubborn and confused attempt to obfuscate this simple state of affairs may seem strange and not very rational or useful in itself.

To win a case against Berlusconi in Italy where the court was composed of red, biased and one-sided judges, is not a deed to be proud of and would never pass into legend. Such a ridicolous sentence should be thrown in the garbage instead.

That among the Italian judges there is a polically aware motley crew of leftist judges who have put all their efforts into fighting Berlusconi because of his marked anti-communism and his being a formidable obstacle on the leftists' road to their assumption of power in Italy, is a common knowledge...... in Italy.

Most judges come from South Italy where crime is reigning and all inhabitants are more or less affected by this cancer and so also the judges are mentally on the same wavelenght as the criminals they should fight. Like fathers like sons. It could happen that some judge is killed by the organised crime but that happens only because he didn't keep to the unwritten agremeent among southerners (State and Mafia). The gap among crime and justice in Italy is very thin. We must also consider that a great number of judges are affiliated with left-wing parties or are sympathizing with the leftists. The same problem is found in the bureaucracy where most executives and civil servants come from South Italy with their rotten mentality. Of course there are exception to the rule.

Exception to the rule like the former President of Sicily Salvatore Cuffaro that is in jail for helping the Mafia? And he was the guy that smeared Falcone, just before he was killed by the Mafia. Guess who he was allied with? No surprises there, crooks attract crooks.

To win a case against Berlusconi in Italy where the court was composed of red, biased and one-sided judges, is not a deed to be proud of and would never pass into legend. Such a ridicolous sentence should be thrown in the garbage instead with those wretched judges who passed it .

Fortunately, with the new government elected by the people of... khm, well, Goldman Sachs and the ECB... things are heading for a brighter and more dynamic future. Surely a small step for The Economist, but a gigantic leap for Italy and Southern Europe!